intelligent less likely to believe in god, page-231

For Harvey:

You state: "A reading of the gross human rights violations in pre-1951 Tibet and the awful subjugation of the peasant class in the then feudal Tibet, by the extremely wealthy religious classes, or the present subjugation of the Burmese people of Myanmar in an overwhelmingly Buddhist nation (85% Buddhist) should disabuse the "intelligent" of any notion that Buddhism is any better at preventing the same excesses of all the other religions and ideologies."

Tibet aside (given I do not regard its religion as 'Buddhism' but rather a mixture of various philosophies), in making an assessment of what you are saying, one must first divide a religion up between its PRACTITIONERS OR BELIEVERS and NON-PRACTITIONERS. Non-practitioners are those that merely call themselves 'Buddhist' due to their cultural ubringing.

In doing so, one will find very few practicing Buddhists who hold to the doctrine of 'convert/kill the unbeliever'. One will find very few practicing Buddhists who supported the Iraq War for example.

However, in countries such as Burma, Cambodia, Sri Lanka and even Thailand, one has governments that are corrupt and have voliated human rights. However, this has not occurred in the name of Buddhism nor been perpetrated by practising Buddhists.

For example, there has been a number of times in recent Thai history where the King of Thailand (a devout practising Buddhist) has, in the name of Buddhism, intervened and stopped violence by the Thai military.

If you have ever lived in countries like Burma and Thailand, you would appreciate the beauty Buddhism has bought to those nations by their practising Buddhists.

As for Tibet, for monks to be involved in politics, just as there are a few in Sri Lanka today, this is a transgression of the monastic discipline laid down by the Buddha.

Tibetan was a social experiment established by some 'year zero' socialist types (although Tibetan Buddhism still has a definite body of pure teachings).

As for the Buddha himself, he taught a doctrine of a secular society where the individual must work to improve himself or herself, through education, vocational skills, moral and spiritual development, etc. The Buddha taught the separation of religion and state (although taught state rulers should implement some religious moral values).

Therefore, in summary, whilst Buddhism may not be able to solve all human problems, the cause of this is human nature rather than Buddhism itself.

However, that religions can influence religious wars of 'convert/kill the unbeliever' or perpetrate hate crimes in a society such as Australia, you will not find anything in the Buddhist doctrine to support this.

Buddha had infinite love for all religions and the non-religious. Buddha discerned there is a diversity of spiriutal faculties amongst human beings therefore all religions have a place. Buddha did not teach his way was the only way. In fact, Buddha did not openly teach his core teachings to common people. Buddha taught intelligent people should not follow blind faith, which includes believing in his teaching without first conducting a rational inquiry.